Decided on April 29,1997

GURHAXA Appellant
BACHNA Respondents


SURINDER SARUP,J. - (1.)These two second appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri Jasbir S. Dhaliwal, Additional District Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh dated 17 -3 -1990, whereby he accepted both the appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, i.e. the Court of Shri D.K. Sharma, Sub -Judge, 1st Class, Nalagarh dated 14 -3 -1984. The trial Court decreed the suit Kartara and others v. Ram Chand and others, to the effect that the plaintiff alongwith defendant No. 2 are owners in possession of the suit land and the entries in the revenue record are illegal, null and void and a decree for permanent injunction has also been granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No.1. Consequently, the suit Bachna v. Ram Chand and others was dismissed.
(2.)In appeal, the learned lower appellate Court set aside the decree passed in the suit of Bachna and the said suit was decreed as prayed for, whereas the decree in the other suit Kartara v. Ram Chand etc. was set aside and the suit has been dismissed, giving rise to the present second appeals
(3.)Briefly, tie facts are that Bachna filed a suit on 11 -1 -1984 and Kartara and Gurbaxa tiled another suit on 14 -31984. Both these suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court and tried together, subject matter being the same in both the suits. The subject matter of dispute is the land measuring 4 Bighas 17 Biswas comprised in Khasra No.54, Khewat No. 2, Khatauni No. 2, situated in Village Plassi Nathu, Pargna Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, as shown in jamabandi for the year 1977 -78, It was claimed that the suit land was in lieu of land measuring 8 Bighas 17 Biswas comprised in Khewat No. 46 Khatauni No.3 to 5 after consolidation proceedings Ram Chand was the original in owner, who had mortgaged it with possession with three brothers, namely Bachna, Kartara and Gurbaxa for a sum of Rs 250 as usufructuary mortgage. Bachua claimed that in the year s952 the land was redeemed by Shri Ram Chand and thereafter he purchased it, whereas defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. Kartara and Gurbaxa have claimed that the land was never redeemed by said Ram Chand. Bachna claimed that the land was hold to him by Ram Chand for a sum of Rs 600 by way of oral sale on 16 -6 -1952, which was duly entered in the Roznamcha of the Patwari y after mortgage was redeemed by the mortgagor earlier on the same day. He claimed that he had thus continued to be in possession of the suit land as owner after 6 -6 -1952, but due to collusion between the defendants, a mutation of redemption was rejected by the revenue authorities. He claimed that the defendants had admitted him to be in exclusive possession of land by their act and conduct In the alternative, he claimed that he had become owner of the land by adverse possession being in exclusive possession to the exclusion of defendants No. 2 and 3 and that the defendants No. 2 and 3 had admitted him to be owner in possession before the Revenue Officer in the redemption proceedings titled Ram Chand v. Bachna etc decided on 24 -7 -1961. It was further claimed that the entries showing Ram Chand, to be the owner and his brothers as mortgagees were wrong and not binding on his rights. He further sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit land praying in the alternative for a decree of possession, ia case he is found not to be in possession.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.